- 18 -
ii. U.S. Government Bond Funds14
Mr. Burns’ written report includes a copy of the
aforementioned Lipper closed end fund table published in the
November 24, 1997, edition of Barron’s (the Lipper table). That
table lists 13 funds under the heading “U.S. Gov’t Bond Funds”
and contains NAV data for 12 of those funds.15 Mr. Dankoff
winnows that sample to seven unidentified funds, apparently on
the basis of “outliers and asset homogeneity with the subject
assets”. Mr. Dankoff offers no data in support of his refinement
of the sample, and we see no obvious “outliers” in the group.
Accordingly, we include in our sample (as did Mr. Burns) all 12
of the funds for which NAV data is set forth in the Lipper table.
iii. State and Local Bonds (Michigan)
The Lipper table lists five Michigan funds under the heading
“Single State Muni Bond”. We include in our sample (as did Mr.
Dankoff, apparently) all five of those funds.16
14 The partnership’s lone investment in U.S. Government
bonds on the valuation date was itself in the form of shares of a
closed end investment fund, Putnam Intermediate Government (PGT).
While it may be more appropriate under these circumstances simply
to utilize that fund’s price-to-NAV discount in our analysis
(rather than a discount derived from a sample of funds), the
record does not contain that information.
15 See supra note 14.
16 Although Mr. Dankoff does not identify the funds
included in his sample, he does indicate that his sample contains
five funds. Mr. Burns did not create a separate sample of single
State funds invested in Michigan-based obligations.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011